This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: What *is* the API for sched_getaffinity? Should sched_getaffinity always succeed when using cpu_set_t?
- From: "Carlos O'Donell" <carlos at redhat dot com>
- To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki dot motohiro at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Alexander Monakov <amonakov at ispras dot ru>, chrubis at suse dot cz, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 17:04:28 -0400
- Subject: Re: What *is* the API for sched_getaffinity? Should sched_getaffinity always succeed when using cpu_set_t?
- References: <51E42BFE dot 7000301 at redhat dot com> <51E4A0BB dot 2070802 at gmail dot com> <20130716110445 dot GA20826 at rei> <CAHGf_=qxR-abdjwmJUw8vApSioDhKhvsc54Yx-fpw5V-whpioQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <51E5DCB2 dot 1070305 at gmail dot com> <20130717100527 dot GA24881 at rei> <51E6EA7E dot 6050601 at gmail dot com> <20130718110505 dot GA32439 at rei> <51E85763 dot 5090809 at gmail dot com> <51E8691C dot 6040609 at redhat dot com> <alpine dot LNX dot 2 dot 00 dot 1307190814340 dot 1061 at monopod dot intra dot ispras dot ru> <51E8C788 dot 8040500 at redhat dot com> <51E99323 dot 5040403 at gmail dot com>
On 07/19/2013 03:27 PM, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>> I think that on ARM, with CPUs offline, _SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN should
>> still count those CPUs if they are going to be put back online once
>> load goes up.
>
> I agree. example, x86 report the cpu is online even if it is deep sleep state
> for power saving. If ARM has complete different policy, applications have no
> way to write a portable code.
>
> Or, is there any good and arm specific reason to make different?
I don't think any of this is ARM specific.
It is another factor that must be considered when making global
changes to glibc code.
Cheers,
Carlos.